Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 859

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 855

←

Archive 857

→

Commons

I just realized that the Wikipedia picture of the day and the Wikimedia Commons picture of the day are two different things. It's confusing and redundant. Why is it this way? Benjamin (talk) 12:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Benjamin. Wikipedia and Commons are separate projects. The English Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which can both display images uploaded here and at Commons. Our picture of the day is picked from Wikipedia:Featured pictures which includes: "must add significantly to at least one article on Wikipedia". So it's only for pictures used in our articles. The description of the picture of the day has a bold link to an article using it, and includes text from the article. Wikimedia Commons is a repository of free-use images, sounds, and other media files. Their images can be displayed by hundreds of wikis or used in other ways. Their picture of the day has no requirement for how it's used. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there an email notification for the Wikipedia picture of the day like there is for the Commons one, and like there is for the article of the day, and other things of the day? Benjamin (talk) 14:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

article creation

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.wDhaanMandi_4310569

i found this app Dhaan mandi (crop market) on google play store and its very useful i gues, should i create an article on it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boyofjawad (talk • contribs) 13:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Boyofjawad. Wikipedia articles aren't just about things that are useful: For an article to be created it should meet Wikipedia guidelines on notablility. Usually, this means that it has to be covered in reliable news sources before it gets covered on Wikipedia. Unless the app is very well known and has detailed independent reviews by large news publications, it is unlikely that an article will be accepted. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Administrator and editor questions

What do you do to become an administrator ? And who is an editor , how d'you become one ? ANUCH6F (talk) 11:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC) , 30 OCTOBER 2018 , 17:02 (IST)

This guy is a sock of User:X027, Govvy (talk) 11:48, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Those are good questions @ANUCH6F:. An editor is any person (like ANY person on earth) that wants to contribute to Wikipedia. Fix a spelling error in an article? You're an editor! Create a new article Wikipedia was missing? You're an editor! Add some important information? You're an editor! See, ANYONE is an editor. That's why Wikipedia's motto is "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". An administrator is an editor that has been approved by their fellow editors to have access to a few additional editing tools: primarily the ability to delete entire pages (see WP:DELETE), the ability to protect or "lock down" pages that are being disrupted (see WP:PROT) and the ability to block users who are being disruptive (see WP:BLOCK). I hope that helps! --Jayron 32 11:53, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Administrators can also make life difficult for editors they don't like, and who get in the way of their POV pushing. This, of course, is not how things are supposed to work, but there seems to be a pretty strong code among admins to not do anything about other, badly behaved admins. It's only a tiny minority of admins who misbehave in the way I've described, but it's a majority who don't do much about it. It's a sad and unfortunate feature of this project. HiLo48 (talk) 01:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

A valid opinion that I respect, because it has happened to me. A very few admins "pull the admin card" to try to get their way, or they try to get other editors to support their POV in ways that are inconsistent with the guideline, or other things like you described. Even has led to wheel warring on occasion. Fortunately, the vast majority of admins remain trusted by the community and worthy of that trust. For me, that's actually the best reason to want to become an admin – to see if the community trusts you enough to give you the mop. Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 20:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

What's wheel warring? It just redirects to admin. @Paine Ellsworth: Benjamin (talk) 22:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I find it hard to trust a group of editors with power who refuse to use that power to reign in miscreants among their own ranks. HiLo48 (talk) 02:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

We're all volunteers after all, and the trust isn't for a "group of editors" as if they are all untrustworthy. I trust and admire or distrust and dislike one admin at a time. Trust is earned, and most admins have earned it. Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 03:47, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there are certainly some I trust individually, but why is nothing done about the obvious POV pushing bullies among their ranks? HiLo48 (talk) 05:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I would ask the same question, and yet a lot of things happen that we never see or know about. So I just continue to go about doing what I like to do, improve Wikipedia. It's really the only reason I'm here. Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 14:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the problem is some administrators (and other reverters, such as hugglers) interact so much with rude users, they end up getting rude themselves. WP:Don't feed the trolls also applies as don't feed the reverters. If an uninvolved user redoes something that a reverter has undone, the reverter might let it go. – Pretended leer {talk} 17:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC), fixed typo 21:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Are "block" statistics tracked by Wikipedia? Do some Administrators function in a purely "enforcement" role dealing with "disruptive Editors", etc... (vs. concerning themselves with actual Articles)? Do some Administrators block more than others? Have any Administrators ever been deemed too (at best) "heavy handed" with their blocking (particularly with New Editors), to being explicitly biased in cherry-picking Editors to be "enforced", while allowing other Editors free reign to do whatever they want because they can be relied upon to implement, "go along with" said Administrator's bias? I'm asking this in the most general way possible. I want to know if it's ever even happened, because if the answer is "No, that never happens", that's meaningful. At this point I get the general impression that Administrators are given free reign to do whatever they want, for any reason they see fit, with no means of accountability. Am I incorrect? If so, how? Please cite case, or policy, and not "I love all our noble Administrators, who are infallible." in an attempt to ingratiate yourself. Also please don't post a weasel response, that goes something like "While all Administrators are prone to mistakes, yadda, yadda, yadda." I'm looking for substance here, and not blandishment.Tym Whittier (talk) 23:41, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

In a very general sense, see WP:ADMINACCT, you can also browse through the page/archives at WP:ANI, WP:AN and admins you find interesting. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases probably have some, and I'm sure there's more. In short, admins are people and people make mistakes and are disagreed with. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

You may also find forums such as Wikipediocracy interesting. And perhaps Wikipedia:Press coverage 2018. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. This is substantive, and meaty. Something to chew on.Tym Whittier (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: I've copied all the Wikipedia references mentioned in this thread to my sandbox, if anyone wants to have them before this thread gets archived.Tym Whittier (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

How do you start developing a good writing style/be able to write an article that meets Wikipedia standards?

I always wanted to write a Wikipedia article about a subject that isn't really spoken about, but I'm not sure on how to start writing and if there are certain things to look out for. Can someone help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SealBoi (talk • contribs) 17:41, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello SealBoi, I've left some information on your talk page that should help you get started. The best way to go is to do some amount of work with existing articles before you consider starting a new one, as choosing an appropriate topic and correctly creating a new article on something is one of the more challenging things we do. That being said, one of the things you'll find is that Wikipedia follows, not leads. If a subject "really isn't spoken about" and there isn't enough reliable and independent source material to write a complete article, we shouldn't have an article about it at all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:44, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Brian Kemp and Athens Academy

regarding Brian Kemp and Athens Academy: The BK Wikipedia page claims that he "graduated from Athens Academy in 1983" He did not; I have a 1983 yearbook to prove it--small school, only 33 members of the graduating class. He was not among them (I was; and thus I am a primary source with a published source to support the correction) His own page claims that he "went to Clarke Central" This needs to be removed. (the page is partially protected, so I cannot enter the change; I did post to the discussion site but nothing has yet been fixed)

I would be grateful if the BK page could be corrected.

As for the Athens Academy page, listing BK among the notable or distinguished alumni implies that he has an AA diploma--he does not. He attended as a third and fourth grader, and perhaps as late as 1976-77. I do not have the resources to confirm or repudiate this assumption, but he was not in attendance in 77-83. This is verifiable through the yearbooks. He was a third grader in 1972-73, slating him for graduation in 1981-82 (not 1983, as the wikipedia BK page claims--the cited sources are simply wrong). Removing BK from the list of notable alumni was not an error, it is an effort to ensure that Wikipedia does not give a false impression Gaius Cornelius Tacitus (talk) 14:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Gaius Cornelius Tacitus, you do not need to "prove" anything. That information was not supported by a reliable source, and all information not verified by a reliable reference can be challenged and removed by any editor at any time. The burden of providing verification lies on the editor who wishes to include information, not the editor who challenges and/or removes it. Another editor has already removed it. However, when you remove something from an article, it is helpful to fill in the edit summary indicating why you are doing so. If the information is not supported by a referenced, just "Unsourced" will do fine for it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:50, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Telfair Museums

Telfair Museums recently changed the name of its Owens-Thomas House to the Owens-Thomas House & Slave Quarters. The website (telfair.org) can confirm this. Can you change the page name from Owens-Thomas House to Owens-Thomas House & Slave Quarters? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.144.16.131 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Please make this request on the talk page of the article, at Talk:Telfair Museums. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Update: Edits now made by Seraphimblade, but better references are still needed from non-primary sources. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Can I respond to the "conflict of interest" arbitrarily placed by a reviewer on my draft?

I've just received (a few hours ago) a response from a reviewer on this draft Draft:CUBA_Platform. While I can accept the advices re the quality of external references, and such, I cannot accept being flagged as in conflict of interest with the company (this is what I can read on my user talk page here: User_talk:Pfurini). Being not notable enough is not a reason to deduce that I've been paid for writing an article, or I'm somewhat part of an organization, that's simply discriminatory. I don't want to debate the wiki policy of notability, with which I personally disagree (for example in the tech field there are plenty of small projects, way better of "notable" ones, that cannot find a place here only because they are not famous enough). What I simply ask is to think twice before accusing someone of a conflict, when there's no public evidence of such a conflict. In this specific case, I'm an independent Italian programmer, who used the tech stack I wrote about, and contributed to it by both writing open source (read: free) code and sending money to the company, not the other way around. If I cannot publish that page because small communities are not worth being on Wikipedia, I can accept it, but please stop accusing authors of being in conflict with such ease. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfurini (talk • contribs) 19:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Pfurini: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It is possible to have a conflict of interest but not be a paid editor. Those are two different policies. If you genuinely believe you don't have a conflict of interest, a gentle statement addressed to the person who thought you might have a COI would be the proper response. 331dot (talk) 19:33, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@331dot: Thanks for your advice. Is there some accepted/standard way to post such a statement to a reviewer? I don't think it will make any difference for the page itself, as it will never comply to notability guidelines in its present form, but I definitely believe I don't have a COI – Pfurini (talk) 20:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Since the other user posted on your user talk page, they may have it in their watchlist. You could simply post your reply there. If it doesn't appear that they see it, you could post a message on their user talk page directing them back to yours. 331dot (talk) 20:36, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Translating a wiki article from another wiki

Hello together, i'm new here (at least to the english wiki), have been editing for a while on the german wiki as ip, as i couldn't get my desired name, but now a friendly english wiki admin seems to have granted my rename request after registering with another name. (I finally tried this)

I want to translate (and / or rewrite) an existing article about a game on the german wiki, because i'm playing this game a lot at the moment and found out it does not have an article in it's native language: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco_(Computerspiel) I already read how to create a article from scratch, what needs to be paid attention on for translations but i am having a hard time to find out if this game would also fulfill the relevancy criteria on the english wiki and how i would go about naming the article, considering the english wiki has an article about a game with the same name, but from 1988. Could anyone support me in if you think that game is relevant and how to take care about the article name? The game is pretty much an entertainment and education game and has a very unique approach to game-design which is pretty much something outstanding. It has several awards and was mentioned in english media, too. Would love to get some help :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by D3nnis3n (talk • contribs) 12:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, D3nnis3n and Welcome to Wikipedia. I'm more used to editing existing articles than creating new ones, but if the topic meets WP:notability, you could create it in draft space. See Articles for Creation for how to do that. Wikipedia has some guidelines for translating articles, which you might want to follow. When multiple articles would have the same title, we add stuff to the titles to distinguish them. For this one, you could create Draft:Eco (2018 video game). You probably don't need to do anything to the other article, Eco (video game). I think the reviewer can deal with that. – Pretended leer {talk} 19:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Pretended leer, thank you for your help. I did post that draft - so what will happen now? Also, how do i comment on this page correctly, am i doing it right? D3nnis3n (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@D3nnis3n: You can use the same references in several places by giving them names. So if you change

<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2015/06/09/the-government-is-helping-fund-a-minecraft-style-game-for-teaching-kids-about-the-environment/|title=The government is helping fund a Minecraft-style game for teaching kids about the environment|website=Washington Post|language=en|access-date=2018-11-10}}</ref>

to

<ref name="Washington Post">{{Cite web|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2015/06/09/the-government-is-helping-fund-a-minecraft-style-game-for-teaching-kids-about-the-environment/|title=The government is helping fund a Minecraft-style game for teaching kids about the environment|website=Washington Post|language=en|access-date=2018-11-10}}</ref>

. Then you would be able to use <ref name="Washington Post"/> and it would refer to that source.

By the way, for sources in English, you can leave out the |language=en part. But you should use |language=de for those in German. – Pretended leer {talk} 21:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Pretended leer: Thanks, i altered the language tags accordingly. Should i use a citation on ever single sentence even if that would mean having the same reference quite often after each other? Or is it fine to put the citation after some sentences for which evidence can be found on the same page? D3nnis3n (talk) 21:12, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Does an "A" class article exist?

Hello, Rebestalic here again.

Does an "A" class article exist? I've never seen one, but there's always a possibility.

Thank you, Rebestalic (talk) 21:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rebestalic, A-class is only used by a few WikiProjects, see Category:A-Class articles. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Media ownership and copyright. Comment

Hi! I'm a new user of Wiki. I'm learning how to navigate and operate/edit in Wiki environment.

I'm having problem in uploading an image. It is a picture, which I took. Wiki rejects it when I try to load the media in the visual editor. Suggested help link does not work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Commons:First_steps
Issue number 2: Could someone recommend some good reading about the ways to deal with copyright issues for pictures and good image libraries to use?

I have in mind a portrait of a poet, who died about 50 years ago and there are some pix on the net which could be used.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by QwertFixy (talk • contribs) 21:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, QwertFixy. "Wiki" is a term we do not use much because it is a generic term that applies to many websites using similar software. This is the online encyclopedia called Wikipedia and our sister project that hosts free media files is called Wikimedia Commons. As long as the item you photographed is not itself copyrighted, you can upload your photo to Wikimedia Commons, which is a massive image library of freely licensed images. Copyright is a very complex issue. Wikipedia:Copyrights is a good overview and includes links to many other pages that go into great detail about various aspects of copyright compliance on Wikipedia. As for the poet, any photo published before 1923 is free of copyright and can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. If the photo is more recent, a lot more questions need to be asked and answered. We do allow limited use of non-free photos of people who have died, and you can find out more by reading our policy on non-free images. Such non-free photos should be uploaded here on Wikipedia, because I Wikimedia Commons is only for freely licensed and copyright free images. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Stopping vandalism

How do you make pages get higher protection? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomnom121 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Nomnom121: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You may request a stronger page protection at Requests for page protection. 331dot (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Protection is often to block vandalism. Do you believe that articles you have edited have been subjected to vandalism? Articles that you intend to edit subjected to vandalism? Keep in mind that protection blocks edits by new editors, which would include you. David notMD (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Where are the location maps located that load onto a page?

I am working on several pages on Havana, two pages in particular, Bacardi Building (Havana) and Instituto Técnico Militar, show location maps, but where oh where are these maps located so that they show on these pages? Also, can the scale of these maps be changed so that, for example, the street view appears instead of the city? Thank you in advance, this has been a real stumper for me... ovA_165443 00:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Osvaldo valdes 165443, welcome to the Teahouse. Your signature should link to your userspace. The easiest way to do that is to remove the checkmark at "Treat the above as wiki markup" at Special:Preferences. Your examples use Template:Infobox building. Template:Infobox building#Mapframe maps says:

|mapframe-zoom= zoom level (default is 10)

There is also a link "Mapframe" which looks complicated and can get a map from different places. I don't know the details. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Substitute

Can I substitute a sandbox header template? 182.253.162.202 (talk) 05:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes. See WP:SUBST. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 05:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

BLP Vandalism

Hello Abel, is adding “that person is s**t” in biographical articles is a libel or not? 182.253.162.202 (talk) 05:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 05:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

See WP:Vandalism.223.223.129.131 (talk) 06:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

How to get started?

As I am new to Wikipedia I am finding things very difficult please tell me how to get started.Hamid331 (talk) 05:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hamid331: You may get started by joining the Wikipedia Adventure ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 06:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Submitting an article that had a conflict of interest?

Hi – I'm a contributor to an open source software product called Apache Arrow, and I see that there is a draft for a page on it here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Apache_Arrow, but that it has been flagged as having a conflict of interest.

It looks like there were some changes made since the last submission and it no longer links to any resources attached to the original submitter. (Also, the comment flagging it isn't correct, as Apache Arrow isn't a for-profit company, but maybe that doesn't matter).

The project itself is pretty notable within the data science community and an incoming link already from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Apache_Software_Foundation_projects. It'd be great to get it up on WP. Should I re-submit it or does it need more work?

Thank you.

Welcome to the Teahouse. Conflict of interest does not apply only to employees of profit making businesses and COI editing is commonplace in articles about non-profit organizations and many other topic areas. You have a COI regarding this software project since you are a contributor but that is OK as long as you declare it, defer to experienced uninvolved editors and limit yourself to editing drafts and talk pages in specific areas where you have a COI. You can edit normally in other areas of the encyclopedia. I am not an expert in software notability but I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Notability (software) and also read and study Your first article. Take what you have learned and edit that draft if you truly believe that the topic is notable. You can resubmit the draft if you are confident that it complies with our policies and guidelines. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Why were these articles deleted?

Specifically:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Xbox_games_with_HD_support

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS2_480p

These were incredibly helpful articles for me. Why were they removed?

It's kind of a shame that they're deleted when they were so useful. Surely there's a way to access it again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F2C0:EB8C:5:54B:3CB7:5825:606D (talk) 08:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Xbox games with alternate display modes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

And Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of PlayStation 2 games with alternative display modes ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 08:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I need help creating this article so it can be published

Please can someone help me fix the following article. I need editing help, I am not looking for advice as I have tried several times to get this published to no avail. it's a matter of sources that's why it's being rejected

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Joan_Kelley_Walker&oldid=855467723 — Preceding unsigned comment added by RealityTVfanatic (talk • contribs) 09:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion none of the references establish Joan as notable. One year on one reality show plus being married to a rich man does not do it. David notMD (talk) 10:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

RealityTVFanatic: please read the essay No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. --ColinFine (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

A page I made about the cat and fiddle clock Hobart

The cat and fiddle clock in Hobart Tasmania is iconic and I found it strange it didn't have it's own wiki page already. I have written one but haven't heard anything back. Can I please get some help as it is a tourist attraction in Hobart that people visit.

Thanks Alex Alexandra Duval 10:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandra Duval (talk • contribs)

Hello, Alexandra Duval, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. I'm afraid that, like many new editors, you have launched straight into one of the harder tasks in Wikipedia - trying to create a new article - without understanding how Wikipedia works. I have put some helpful links on your user talk page.

Specifically, you have tried to create an article in your User page: your User page is a place for sharing as much or as little as you like about you as a Wikipedia editor: what you are interested in, what you are editing or have edited, a little more about your self if you wish (but be aware that Wikipedia is a very public place). It is not for creating new articles: see the essay Your first article for how to go about that. Secondly, Wikipedia articles are not about what you know, or I know, or some random person on the internet knows: they are summaries of what has been published in reliable places, like major newspapers, and books from reputable publishers. Absolutely the first thing to do in creating any article in Wikipedia is to find several places where people have chosed to publish about the subject; and then base the article almost entirely on what they have written - nothing else.

Happy editing. --ColinFine (talk) 11:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Watchlist?

What exactly does it mean to add a page to my watchlist? I know you do that by clicking the blue star in the top right, but what does that do? Alternate Side Parking (talk) 12:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Alternate Side Parking. On "Watchlist" at the top right you see recent edits to pages on your wathclist. See more at Help:Watchlist. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Authenticity of Wikipedia

I do appreciate the growth of wikipedia. And grateful for the contents and information provided by it. I have been wikipedia user from years back. But from past some days I have not been in touch with the platform. Again coming back to the platform I feel good. Sometimes people ask questions about the authenticity of wikipedia and say that and information provided by it can't be relied upon. But I have never found a wrong information,. And once to check its authenticity I edited a piece of information wrongly then someone another user of wikipedia edited that piece of information and made it to the correct. So give me the strong points with those I can convince those people who ask questions about authenticity of wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhvani Yadav (talk • contribs) 13:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Reliability of Wikipedia, Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Press coverage 2018 may be of interest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:00, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Expected time for article review

How many days will it take for a submitted draft to get approval or disapproval, as the case may be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manoje.john (talk • contribs) 15:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Manoje.john. If you look at the box at the bottom of Draft:Mumbai Rationalist Association, you'll see it says "This may take more than two months, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 1896 pending submissions waiting for review." Note also that reviewers, like all other Wikipedia editors, are volunteers, and choose what they want to work on. Little of the text in your draft is cited to sources, and the citations that are given are bare URL's. Also several of them are in Malayalam (I think): this is acceptable but difficult for a reviewer to deal with unless they can read the language. You are more likely to attract somebody to review the draft if you format the citations (see WP:REFB), and you may like to look at WP:NOENG as well. --ColinFine (talk) 16:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Why doesn't this page get published ?

Draft:Jimi_Kendrix — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveSmith2018 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

It has not yet been submitted for review. If you wish to submit it you would add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft, but you may wish to read WP:NMUSIC to see whether you think he meets the notability requirements. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Working at once in both, an English and a foreign WP

Please help:

I wish to create and translate articles in both, my local German WP and the English WP. I am properly logged in to an account in German WP. However, when switching to EN-WP I don't find the button "create" in the tool box on the left side. I wonder whether that is an indication that I am not properly logged in to the English WP. (Yet, on top right of the page it says "Log out", so as if I was logged in after all).

Question 1: Should I create a new account in EN-WP? For doing so, would I use the same log-in details as in DE-WP?

The imminent reason for my asking: I was able to create a new article in EN-WP recently (even without having a proper button to start off). However, I find my article placed as a draft in a list of some 2000 drafts waiting for review. Draft:Gandhi Memorial Stone (Varanasi)

Therefore

Question 2: Did my creation go to the Draft-section BECAUSE I might not be properly logged in? Or do all new articles go the same way, of registered users as well as of unregistered users? If I created a new account for myself, would my article go a different way?

And finally:

Question 3: My article is in fact a translation from an existing article in the German WP de:Gandhi-Gedenkstein (Varanasi). I have not marked the draft as such. Is that of relevance?

Thanks, Hannoverscher (talk) 09:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Hannoverscher and welcome to Wikipedia! On German Wikipedia, anyone, including logged-out users, can create The reason you can't create mainspace articles on English Wikipedia is because you aren't autoconfirmed on English Wikipedia yet. German Wikipedia lets anyone, including logged-out users, create mainspace articles. But on English Wikipedia, users have to be autoconfirmed to do that. Your account will get autoconfirmed on German Wikipedia at 10:01 the 16th of November. On English Wikipedia it will get autoconfirmed six minutes later (10:07) if you have made three more edits here by then. You can still create articles in draft space or in userspace in the meantime. And you can add {{subst:submit}} at the start of such a draft to get it approved and moved into mainspace. – Pretended leer {talk} 12:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Hannoverscher As Pretended leer alludes to, different language versions of Wikipedia have different policies and may operate differently. (the German Wikipedia encourages business representatives to register the business name as a username, but here that is not allowed). 331dot (talk) 19:36, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hannoverscher: In reply to question 3: you should mention it in the edit summary when creating the draft. But if you've already created it, you can just mention it in the edit summary of another edit. – Pretended leer {talk} 21:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hannoverscher: Also, it seems it wasn't deleted. Its title just wasn't what you remembered: Draft:Gandhi Memorial stone (Varanasi) still exists. See also WP:translating and WP:translating from German Wikipedia. As the person who created the translation, you should be the one mentioning the source in an edit summary, but I'm adding {{translated page|de|Gandhi-Gedenkstein (Varanasi)}} to the talk page. If you add the draft to your watchlist, you should be able to find it there even if it gets renamed. Normally, it will only show it if it has changed in the last three days, but if you click on the link to edit the watchlist, it should let you see a list of all pages on it. It may already be on your watchlist because you created it. – Pretended leer {talk} 21:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Pretended leer, for detailed answer. I suppose I can't go wrong when doing the following: I shall wait until I am autoconfirmed. Then I will ask for deletion of my existing draft-article sitting somewhere in the draft section at no. 1800 or so. And finally I'll start from scratch creating the article anew. (If you should have the rights to delete the draft here and now, please do so, I'd appreciate). Hannoverscher (talk) 17:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Removing uncited material

Hello, Rebestalic here, celebrating my tenth visit to the Teahouse.

One of the last chapters of the article for Les Miserables has a "Refimprove" template and there is a paragraph that doesn't cite any sources. Many days of searching has not revealed any citable information. What do I do--do I propose the paragraph be deleted at the talk page, or do I leave the paragraph be?

Thank you, Rebestalic^{talk page} 18:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Image

How to upload or edit a image?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aayush anuj (talk • contribs) 16:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Aayush anuj. I'm not a host here at the Teahouse, but to upload an image, I would go into source mode first. You'll see a toolbar at the top. The "Picture" tool is fifth from the left. Then, you simply follow what suits you (for example, there is an "upload" button at the bottom left of the dialog box that appears when you click the button).

Editing an image would be different. Simply do so on an image editor that you are familiar with--I'm sure that you know that.

Thank you,

Rebestalic^{talk page} 18:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Problem in Editing a article

I am editing a article "jatav" and someone undones my edit and he is using old and wrong information but I want to update that to the new information but every time when I edits someone makes it undone please help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhisheksinghmohania (talk • contribs) 16:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Abhisheksinghmohania, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and works by consensus. Nobody has the right to say that their version is the right one: rather, when editors do not agree about what an article should say, they should follow the process described in WP:Dispute resolution, which starts by discussing it on the article's talk page, and trying to reach consensus. Reapplying edits without discussion is called edit warring, and is regarded as disruptive editing. --ColinFine (talk) 16:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

In short, go to the Talk page of Jatav. Start a New section explaining the changes you want to make and providing references to substantiate those changes. The fact that there are four different editors reversing the changes you are making strongly suggests your edits are not being done the right way. Asking that other editors be blocked from reverting your changes is REALLY the wrong way to proceed. David notMD (talk) 18:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Notability help

Hi, I'm currently trying to publish an article for a group I work for and it got rejected for notability. They are on a classical record label (so obviously not going to be one of the majors). They had a feature spot in a Boston arts journal but it's an interview piece (so technically doesn't qualify) and another website that would qualify but I need at least two. They have some great appearances at notable places but no Coachella or anything. One of the members has been featured on BBC but that was aside from the group.

I'm at a loss as to how to get this piece published. Any suggestions of where to go from here would be amazing. Here is the link for the draft.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Floyds_Row

All The best Bkolnash (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)BkolnashBkolnash (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Bkolnash. Bad news. I've visited your draft page and frankly, I see why the draft was declined by Legacypac. You see, Legacypac had a good reason to reject your draft, and yes, Floyds Row does have a knowledge panel on Google, but it doesn't have a significant amount of news appearances. I'm assuming that the article creation process is much stricter than before, say, 2010; after all, English Wikipedia has 5 million+ articles.

My advice: Just wait for Floyds Row to start shining out there. Good things come to those who wait.

Thank you,

Rebestalic^{talk page} 18:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Bkolnash, first, remember that we do not permit editorial or opinion. The draft contained "beautifully combines classical, world, jazz, and rock traditions to create the stunning result." Leave out "beautifully" and "stunning", just stick to facts, never any opinion or unneeded adjectives. That aside, if there isn't enough reliable source material about this organization to write an article about it, the conclusion is that we should not have an article about it. If more source material becomes available in the future, we can at that point. You cannot "get this piece published" if there aren't enough sources to do so, and that is by design. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica

Is Encyclopedia Britannica a valid source on Wikipedia? Alternate Side Parking (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Alternate Side Parking. Yes, it is definitely a reliable source in most cases. Please read WP:TERTIARY for the policy language.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup

I recently named myself in WikiCup but will I be allowed participate as I am new to editing?Denim11 (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Denim11. I'm Rebestalic. I agree; you might want to consider spending a little more time on editing. Don't worry about trying to obtain the skills as fast as possible; from my little bit of experience, I can tell you that editors develop skills very slowly. It goes with the saying, "Don't call us, we'll call you".

But feel free to see what happens at WikiCup, anyway.

Thank you,

Rebestalic^{[dubious—discuss]} 20:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

help with my first article in en.wikipedia

I have translated an article from de.wikipedia (Friedrich Wilhelm Arnold) and prepared it in my sandbox. I would appreciate the help of an exprienced editor to check if it's ok. ThanksScivl (talk) 10:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Scivl and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm not a very experienced editor, so others might want to look at it too, but I think it looks okay. I haven't checked if something should be linked to that is't linked to, but here are some other things I noticed:

Change "pieces from" to "pieces by".
The following sentence sounds okay in German, but maybe a bit ambiguous:
Um 1850 verstärkte Arnold die Erforschung des deutschen Volksliedes.
Did he get more involved in researching German folk songs or was it a field that wasn't being researched in general, and then he changed that? In any case, it probably shouldn't say "occupied himself with" in English, and "the German folk-song" sounds like it's a specific song. I'd change it to this:
As of 1850, Arnold was increasingly occupied with research on German folk songs.
The sources section could probably be made into a bulletted list.
German titles of works mentioned in the text should be marked with Template:lang, for example {{lang|Deutsche Volkslieder aus alter und neuer Zeit}}.

Also, you might want to give it a talk page with {{Translated page|de|Friedrich Wilhelm Arnold}}. – Pretended leer {talk} 13:36, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Pretended leer. Many thanks for your help. I have made the changes you suggested. Would you aslo suggest moving the article to the main name space now? How is that done (I don't see the drop-down menu "more" with the "move" button)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scivl (talk • contribs) 11:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC) Scivl (talk) 11:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Addendum: My last question about the drop-down menu "more" is now superfluous: I have just made my tenth edit and am autoconfirned and so the menu has now appeared. Scivl (talk) 11:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Scivl: Usually, people are advised to submit articles by adding {{subst:submit}} to them. Then someone with more experience should review it and move it if it's good enough. You could probably do that now. Also, I've written on its talk page. – Pretended leer {talk} 20:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

And maybe someone else can check what's up with reference number six. I think I broke it when trying to fix something else. It's something to do with the cite book template, but I'm not sure what. I'm guessing "editor" is being treated like "edition" or something. – Pretended leer {talk} 20:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

How to Resubmit a draft

My draft is ready for resubmission in my sandbox. How do I resubmit it. The original draft was deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikijames1 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Please see WP:AFC --Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 21:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

A Big Foot Siting, really?

Hello friends, hope this is the right spot to seek guidance on this topic. I happened upon the Willits, California article. Found a section titled "Big Foot Sitings". Got triggered by this and so fixed the misspelling. But now I'm committed so I start editing the badly written section. Then I see some advertising junk like you see in the middle of a news story. It's a bad copy/paste job. I google some of the text and find the source. I deleted the wholesale paste from the news site and add a citation and fix up the prose a bit. But now I'm curious so I look at the page history and see the same user (IP address only) has deleted chunks of the town's history and replaced it with (arguably) biased sections about native American Genocide and such. At this point I'm not sure I want to start a war and revert changes and such. How does one deal with such a situation? Do I just undo stuff? Reach out to the user first? Start a talk page discussion? I want to be a friendly wikignome and not get the world pissed at me. But imho, there's a bunch of junk on this page that should be cleaned off. What to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertl30 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Robertl30. I'm Rebestalic. You're right; you definitely shouldn't start an edit war. I recommend you leave a post on the IP user's talk page telling them that they've made low quality/disruptive edits to Willits, California. If you feel that you want to, feel free to send them a vandalism warning. There are four levels of warning; I'll leave you to find them. See Wikipedia: Vandalism #Warnings. One thing though; I'm sure you know this, but please be courteous to the user. If the user is an unassuming minor, they'll probably feel ashamed if you treat them formally. If they're an adult, they'll understand.

Thank you,

Rebestalic^{[dubious—discuss]} 20:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Rebestalic, Thanks for the tips. I think we're good here. An admin came in and reverted all those changes. So I'll be curious to see what unfolds next. I read the Vandalism page. I think this was an example of Tendentious Editing WP:TENDENTIOUS. And yeah, I had to google "tendentious". Now I'm smarter. :) Robertl30 (talk) 22:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

My pleasure.

Rebestalic^{[dubious—discuss]} 00:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello

Hi how are you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shubhankar97 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Shubhankar97: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Do you have a question about using Wikipedia? 331dot (talk) 23:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Shubhankar97. Your question is very generic! There are over two hundred hosts at the Teahouse. By the way, you shouldn't be asking these kinds of questions--Just like what 331dot said, your question needs to relate to using Wikipedia.

Happy editing,

Rebestalic^{[dubious—discuss]} 00:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Name Change for a Landmark

How should I handle it when a landmark (example and reason for asking this: Hotel Durant in Berkeley, CA) changes ownership and changes names? A hotel has changed hands a few times - and ultimately has a couple of major renovations under new ownership (Two that I'm aware of off the top of my head). The official name has changed, but the outward appearance of the hotel has really not. It even maintains the original hotel's vintage signage on the outside. Challenger l (talk) 01:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Challenger l. Let's say we had another hotel named "abc". A new manager came, bought the hotel and renamed it "xyz". There are two steps that I would take.

1. I would say in the article something like "The Hotel xyz, formerly the Hotel abc, ..." or similar. A good example for this practice would be the article for Dôme de Paris.

2. I would rename the article. It looks like you don't have the Page mover right, so you should request that the article's name be changed.

I hope that helps.

Thank you,

Rebestalic^{[dubious—discuss]} 03:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Receiving credit toward being "auto confirmed" by making an edit

Hi, I've been doing edits to wiki pages while logged into my account in order to accumulate 10 edits for "auto confirm" status. I have received notice for only one of three edits. The recent edit made to page titled Meyer Wolfe did not appear in my message box however, my edit is documented on the edit history page. What do I need to do differently to have my edits recognized? My account name is Geotcado. Thanks for any help you can provide.Geotcado (talk) 23:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)GeotadoGeotcado (talk) 23:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Geotcado: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You won't receive a notification for every edit you make, but you can see them on your Contributions page. There should be a link to this in the top right corner of your computer screen. Every edit you make counts towards the 10, including your above post. 331dot (talk) 23:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Geotcado. As 331dot said, you will not receive notifications for every edit you make. However, I can tell you that you will get notifications in your message box on your first, tenth, hundredth and thousandth edit. The rest I don't know; I haven't gone further than 1,500 edits. When you gain autoconfirmed status, you won't get a notification. Same goes with extended-confirmed; if you don't know, there will be a time where you will have spent a total of 30 days and 500 edits. That gives you extended-confirmed rights, enabling you to edit pages with blue locks, such as that of Donald Trump. Being extended-confirmed will also enable you to become a host right here at the Teahouse!

You can see an exact amount of your edits at https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Geotcado. Alternatively, go to "Contributions" at the top right of your screen when viewing any article, scroll down to the bottom, then click on "edit count". That will send you to the site above.

Happy editing,

Rebestalic^{[dubious—discuss]} 04:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Requesting Review of Dharitri Terangpi

Hi, If anyone have time Kindly review and improve the page Dharitri Terangpi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrisle (talk • contribs) 05:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Vrisle. Page reviewers are always busy with the very task that you are requesting. If the worst comes to the worst, you may need to wait several months until the page is reviewed. When the page eventually is reviewed, you will receive a notification in your Wikipedia inbox.

However, I can tell you that the page has quite a few shortfalls. Unfortunately, the article doesn't have a very encyclopedic tone, and it could do with some better grammar in some areas.

Thank you,

Rebestalic^{[dubious—discuss]} 05:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Contacting a specific editor/administrator?

I am very new to editing and am trying to learn the ropes. Another editor just undid all of the revisions I made to an entry. I could find no comment explaining the reasons. I would like to contact the editor and go over the changes one by one. I was able to find the user name and their profile page, showing that this user is very experienced. I cannot figure out how to reach them. Please explain how I would message them or post a note that they would see.

Thanks,

777write (talk) 02:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)777write

Hi 777write. The easiest way to figure out who undid your edits is to look at the page history of the article in question, and check the diffs or the edits made subsequent to yours. Sometimes, the revision comes immediately after you made the edit, but other times there might be non-related edits made in between. From looking at your contributions history, it looks like your talking about edits you made to Evergreen State College which were reverted by HaeB with this edit.

Now, I have gone and reverted the last two edits you've made to the article because the way you're embedding external links into the article is not something allowed per Wikipedia:Citing sources#Avoid embedded links and Wikipedia:External links#cite_note-7. Please refer to Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for information on how to properly added citations to an article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate the quick feedback and will stop placing external links. Unless you advise otherwise, I am going to return to the two items you removed and add the information with a reference at the bottom instead of using the template that creates the external link. Would you mind checking in a few minutes to see if the way I do it is acceptable and explaining to me if it is not?

Thanks again,

777write (talk) 03:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)777write

@777write: It looks like you just changed the Template:As of as well as some of the student enrollment figures. This appears to be supported by the citation cited in support; so, I don't there's any issue with what you did (except maybe some WP:DATEUNIFY issues, but that might've already existed). One thing though is that the lead of an article is just intended to be a summary of the main points discussed later on; it's not really intended to be the place were some relevant bit of information is only mentioned. Some of the details in the second paragraph of the lead (or lede) might not really need to be mentioned there. This is one of the reasons for WP:CITELEAD as well since it is assumed that citations to information mentioned in the lead are not necessarily needed if the same content is properly cited later in the article.

Finally, just curious as to the reasons for your sudden burst of editing of the article in the past day. Your account is fairly new and the wording of some of the edit summaries you have left for the edit give the impression of a more than casual familiarity of the subject matter; so, if by chance you have any personal or professional connection to the college, then you'd might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide for reference. If you're not connected in anyway and just decided to try and improve the article, then just continue being bold, using the article talk page to collaborate with others as needed per WP:CAUTIOUS, and you should be fine. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again. No COI or personal connection. I've worked in higher education so it's a subject that interests me. I've been mulling this one over for a few weeks and finally got the courage to go ahead and make suggestions. I appreciate your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 777write (talk • contribs) 05:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

If you're interested in this type of article, then you might want to look at Wikipedia:WikiProject University and Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools. Articles about schools seem to be a type of article that often needs monitoring and attention, and those two WikiProjects tend to focus on such things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)